ORDER
P.K. Kapoor, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents imported a colour film printing machine and colour film analyser against Bill of Entry No. AC 532 dated 18.2.1983. After clearance of the goods they filed a refund claim on the grounds that the goods were assessable at the concessional rate at 40% under Notification No. 50/78-Customs dated 1.3.1979. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the grounds that under Notification No. 57/78 dated 1.3.1978 Printing Machine and Film Analyser were exempted provided they were imported for use in Cinematographic Laboratories, whereas the importers were engaged only in photo-printing which was not connected with the Cinematographic industry. The appeal filed by the respondents against the order passed by the Assistant Collector was allowed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who observed that the SSI certificate granted to M/s. Deensha Selvamahal Movies and Films (Film Section) was for ‘processing’ developing and printing of colour films only’ and they were also registered with the sponsoring authority viz., National Film Development Corporation Ltd., (for colour film printing). Having regard to the evidence submitted before him, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the claim that M/s. Deensha Selvamahal Movie and Films were connected with the film industry and held that they were entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 57/78 dated 1.3.1978.
2. On behalf of the Revenue, we heard the learned SDR Shri S.K. Roy. He stated that the certificate issued to the respondents by the Director of Industries and Commerce, Madras described the respondents’ manufacturing activity as ‘Processing, Developing and Printing of Colour Films only’. He added that the National Development Corporation Ltd., Madras while allotting a registration number to the respondents had indicated their activity as ‘Colour Film Printing’, and their installed capacity for such colour Film printing was shown as 150 prints per day. He contended that from the certificates relied upon by the Collector (Appeals) it cannot be inferred that the respondents were engaged in cinematographic film processing and printing or their unit was a ‘Cinematographic Laboratory’. Shri Roy argued that mere registration of the respondents with N.F.D.C. Ltd. was not sufficient to establish that they were engaged in cinematographic film processing in a cinematographic laboratory. He claimed that the imported equipment was essentially meant for processing frame by frame ordinary films exposed in 35mm cameras and was not suitable for processing and printing cinematographic film reels which are processed and printed continuously by automatic machines. On these grounds he argued that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) was incorrect and contrary to facts.
3. On behalf of the respondents, the learned Advocate Shri A.N.F. Md. Iqbal stated that there was no force at all in the Department’s contention that the respondents were engaged in ordinary photo-printing and that they were not connected with film industry. He added that the SSI certificate held by the respondents was for ‘processing, developing and printing of colour films’ and they were also registered with the National Film Development Corporation Ltd. for ‘colour film printing’ which is the sponsoring authority for film studios, film processing laboratories etc. He stated that the respondents’ film laboratory was equipped only for the processing and printing of Cinematographic films. He claimed that the film analyser imported by the respondents finds application only in cinematographic film laboratories.
4. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. It is seen that the question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the colour film printing machine and colour analyser imported by the respondents were eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 50/78 dated 1.3.1978 as equipment used in cinematographic laboratory. We find that neither in the order passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting the respondents’ refund claim nor in the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) there is any indication of the type and make of colour film printing machine and analyser that were imported by the respondents. The case records do not contain important documents such as the Bill of Entry incorporating the examination report and the suppliers invoice. There is also no indication of the relevant catalogue or technical literature having been examined by either the Assistant Collector or the Collector (Appeals). In our view, a decision on the question whether the imported ‘Film Printing Machine and Analyser’ were equipments usable in cinematographic laboratories could not be based only on the SSI certificate held by the respondents or their registration with the National Film Development Corporation. We find that the relevant literature incorporating the technical specifications of the imported equipments was not referred to at any stage by the lower authorities, nor was it produced before us. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for us to arrive at any finding on the issue involved in this case.
5. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and remand the case back to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration having regard to our aforesaid observations.
6. The respondents shall produce the relevant technical literature, such as the manufacturers catalogues operating manual etc., if any, before the Assistant Collector, who shall give them suitable opportunity for hearing before passing the order in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.